Empirical Race Psychology and the Hermeneutics of Epistemological Violence Thomas Teo Human Studies A Journal for Philosophy and the Social Sciences ISSN 0163-8548 Volume 34 Number 3 Hum Stud (2011) 34:237-255 DOI 10.1007/s10746-011-9179-8 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science+Business Media B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your work, please use the accepted author’s version for posting to your own website or your institution’s repository. You may further deposit the accepted author’s version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s request, provided it is not made publicly available until 12 months after publication. 1 23 Author's personal copy Hum Stud (2011) 34:237–255 DOI 10.1007/s10746-011-9179-8 THEORETICAL PAPER Empirical Race Psychology and the Hermeneutics of Epistemological Violence Thomas Teo Published online: 15 June 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract After identifying the discipline of psychology’s history of contributing pioneers and leaders to the field of race research, epistemological problems in empirical psychology are identified including an adherence to a naı¨ve empiricist philosophy of science. The reconstruction focuses on the underdetermined rela- tionship between data and interpretation. It is argued that empirical psychology works under a hermeneutic deficit and that this deficit leads to the advancement of interpretations regarding racialized groups that are detrimental to those groups. Because these interpretations are understood as actions that bring harm to certain racialized groups, and because these actions are made in the name of science and knowledge, the term epistemological violence is applied. Reflections regarding the meanings and consequences of this term in empirical psychology and the human sciences are presented. Keywords Epistemological violence Á Scientific racism Á Psychology Á Hermeneutics Introduction In the middle of 2010 the press reported that a school board member in Marysville (Washington State) had suggested to his colleagues that different racial groups display different academic achievements due to different brain sizes. According to The Seattle Times, the person wrote in an e-mail message that ‘‘east Asians and their descendants averaged larger brain size, higher intelligence and social organization than Anglo-Saxons and their descendants, and that Anglo-Saxons, in turn, averaged T. Teo (&) Department of Psychology, History and Theory of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada e-mail: [email protected] 123 Author's personal copy 238 T. Teo higher scores in those dimensions than did Africans and their descendants’’ (Flandro 2010). He contended that due to this biological difference certain racial groups were incapable of achieving academic success and that it would explain the district’s achievement gap (Shaw 2010). As publicized, he did not develop such justifications himself—his arguments were based on the research of the Canadian psychologist Rushton (1995). How is it possible that individuals who are involved in education or psychology neglect the huge amount of critical, historical, philosophical, sociological, and anthropological information regarding the concept of race, intelligence, achieve- ment, class, and so on, which challenges such arguments as described above? Certainly, the notion of differences in ability between racialized groups fulfills long- held stereotypes, but another source of such attitudes may be found in scientific, empirical studies from the discipline of psychology. Rushton is just one recent example of the many psychologists who have advanced the notion of race differences in mental life. Indeed, the discipline of psychology has a long history of contributing pioneers and leaders to the field of race research and scientific racism (see Gould 1996; Jackson and Weidman 2004, Richards 1997; Tucker 1994; Winston 2004). Race Psychology In tracing that history, it can be seen that founders of the modern discipline of psychology were engaged in race psychology. Francis Galton (1822–1911), considered one of the pioneers of the discipline, argued that Europeans were by nature more intelligent than ‘‘primitive races’’ and recommended the quantification of levels of racial intelligence. One of the founders of social psychology, Gustave Le Bon (1841–1931), understood races as physiologically and psychologically distinct entities that possessed separate race souls, although Le Bon did not base his arguments on empirical methods. Paul Broca (1824–1880), one of the founders of ‘‘neuropsychology’’, was convinced that non-European races were inferior to European races and used a variety of scientific studies to prove his preconceived conviction. In the United States, pioneers of psychology such as Granville Stanley Hall (1844–1924), the first president of the American Psychological Association (APA), argued that ‘‘lower races’’ were in a state of adolescence—a claim that provided justification for segregation policies in the United States. In particular, in the first half of the twentieth century empirical race psychology was prominent and influential. Leading American psychologists, including the APA presidents Robert M. Yerkes (1876–1956), who played a decisive role in army testing, and Lewis Terman (1877–1956), who supported segregated education, spearheaded race psychology. Popular in race psychology was also the study of the mulatto hypothesis, which suggested that a greater proportion of white ‘‘blood’’ in a black person’s ancestry would lead to higher intelligence (see Teo 2004). Although an important shift occurred from studying race to researching prejudice in the discipline, especially after 1945 (Samelson 1978), empirical race studies have never completely vanished, and some of the most prominent current advocates of race psychology and scientific racism are psychologists. 123 Author's personal copy Empirical Race Psychology 239 In 1997 the eminent psychologist Raymond B. Cattell (1905–1998), who is known to most psychology students for his studies on intelligence and personality, was chosen by APA for one of its highest awards, the Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in the Science of Psychology. Critics of the nomination pointed out that Cattell (1937) had early in his life praised the racial-hygienic laws of the Third Reich, and that he had later hoped that races would be separated into groups who would form non-interbreeding species (Cattell 1987) (for a critique, see Tucker 1994). An APA committee was set up to investigate the case but Cattell withdrew his name from consideration and died a few months later. Probably more academic attention was given to Arthur Jensen (1969) for his highly cited article in which he argued that because of physical differences between races there should also be ‘‘genetically conditioned behavioral characteristics’’ (80) that would include mental abilities. Because intelligence has a genetic component, he argued, ‘‘it seems not unreasonable … to hypothesize that genetic factors may play a role’’ (82) in producing racial differences in IQ. However, both propositions are speculative. In the first case, having genetically conditioned behavioral characteristics has nothing to do with differences between ‘‘races’’ and, in the second case, the ‘‘hypothesis’’ is not a scientific hypothesis that had been tested but rather is an interpretation with consequences. Rushton and Jensen (2005) summarized Thirty Years of Research on Race: Differences in Cognitive Ability by concluding that the ‘‘Black–White IQ difference is partly heritable’’ (278). They argued that the ‘‘denial of any genetic component in human variation, including between groups, is not only poor science, it is likely to be injurious both to unique individuals and to the complex structure of societies’’ (285). Of course, human variation has a genetic component, yet no data exist to determine that differences in mental life between groups are genetic. Similarly, the Harvard psychologists Herrnstein and Murray (1994) drew in the Bell Curve the conclusion that Blacks were disadvantaged by both environment and genetics. Rushton, whose research was and remains well funded (e.g., by the Pioneer Fund where he became president), has continued to publish in mainstream psychology journals, including APA journals. He points out that between 1986 and 1990 he was the 11th most cited psychologist (see Rushton 1999). Rushton (1985, 1995, 1999) starts with the assumption of the existence of three major races (Orientals, Whites, Blacks) that can be categorized according to a variety of physical and psychological characteristics; for example, he describes Blacks as being by nature more aggressive, less intelligent, and less law-abiding than Whites and Asians. According to his view, Whites take the good Aristotelian middle ground between Blacks and Asians (see Aalbers 2002). The data, which themselves have been challenged for their selectiveness are interpreted by Rushton within the r-K life history theory that was originally developed within evolutionary biology for animals and plants (see Wilson 1975) (for a critique of his work, see e.g., Code 1993; Fairchild 1991; Lieberman 2001; Peregrine et al. 2003; Peters 1995; Weizmann et al. 1990; Winston 1996). Rushton (1985) suggested that a K reproductive strategy creates few offspring whereas the r-strategy produces a large